Judge Gives File-Sharer a Break

J

John_Keck

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 3, 2010
Messages
379
A Boston Judge reduced the $675,000 fine for illegally downloading and sharing 30 songs citing the constitutional protection against excessive awards in civil cases.
Getner said the $675,000 award was "out of proportion with the government's legitimate interests in compensating the plaintiffs and deterring unlawful file-sharing." She added that the $67,500 award was "severe and is more than adequate to satisfy the statutory purposes and the plaintiffs' interests."
Click to expand...
 
So only being 4500X the price is acceptible, but 45000x wasn't? I'm sure when they get all the file sharers ruined, broke and on the street, crime in the US of A shall just dissapear. Copying files is the ultimate sin and you deserve to have your life as you know it taken away.
 
The thing about a civil suit is their not worth much. Because people can only take a judgment out on you. That does not mean you will ever get any money from them. If they sell a house, car or something of value then any profits you are supposed to pay them some of what you owe. Just like when my car was broken into and the jerk caused $500 worth of damage. All I could do is collect when he want's to give me money. 7 years later I'm still waiting!
 
$67,500/30 songs = $2,250/song, 3 times the minimum statutory damages per song (work).

Just as a reminder, the reason these people were sued was not for *downloading* music, but for "sharing" (the unauthorized redistribution of) music. Yes kids, P2P generally does that by design.
 
one thing that i keep thinking about is after its all over in court what happens if they just file bankruptcy.

i know i had some one hit me years ago had no insurance. judgement was for 13k they were not going to pay so i started the wage garnishment. month later i get a letter stating they filed chapter 7. being only thing they really owned is a wrecked car they got a way scott free never had to pay after bankruptcy.
 
If everyone who has ever shared a song or movie was sued for the same astronomical sum, there simply would not be enough money in he world to "compensate" the labels and studios.
 
Of course, the RIAA doesn't care about the money. They have spent many times that amount on their lawyers already. What they want is a precedent in which an outrageous sum is to be paid by the defendant. With that out of the way they can really clamp down on all those filthy pirates while simultaneously enriching their own pockets. Artists, what artists?
 
You know, I'd be far more sympathetic to nailing file-sharers if the money went straight to the artists whose work was distributed. But as it is, the money lines the pockets of the RIAA to go so MORE people.
 
This shit is dumb, the fact they even entertain such ridiculous amounts is beyond reason.

They're essentially sending the message to society, go steal shit, but just not music. Because somehow their "projected lost profits" claims are reasonable.
 
TitanFox said:
one thing that i keep thinking about is after its all over in court what happens if they just file bankruptcy.

i know i had some one hit me years ago had no insurance. judgement was for 13k they were not going to pay so i started the wage garnishment. month later i get a letter stating they filed chapter 7. being only thing they really owned is a wrecked car they got a way scott free never had to pay after bankruptcy.
Click to expand...

Bankruptcy is different now as far as I know, you still have to pay back the money just different terms.
 
if there is a set fine for committing a crime and you break the law, should you not pay the price?
i dont agree with the high fines handed out, but if you know in advance and still make the choice to do it....DONT BITCH ABOUT GETTING CAUGHT!
 
an51r said:
Bankruptcy is different now as far as I know, you still have to pay back the money just different terms.
Click to expand...

There is Chapter 7 and Chapter 13. Chapter 13 you still have to pay pack what you owe, but you get to map out payment terms over a long period of time, you can also negotiate the sum down.

In Chapter 7, your debt is wiped out and you do not owe anything after. Chapter 7 is harder to file for, but the amount being tossed around in these cases would generally qualify people who aren't upper middle class. There are somethings that cannot be dropped by chapter 7, but civil judgements, like the one in this case, can be wiped out by chapter 7.
 
But, but, the RIAA spent more than $65K on the lawsuit.. How will they profit off that? ;) J/K



To the people yelling "file for bankruptcy", legal judgments are not always discharged with a bankruptcy. It can be fought in the courts and you can still end up paying some or all of it. Ask, O.J. about that. That, and declaring bankruptcy is hardly as easy now as it was a decade ago.
 
pxc said:
$67,500/30 songs = $2,250/song, 3 times the minimum statutory damages per song (work).

Just as a reminder, the reason these people were sued was not for *downloading* music, but for "sharing" (the unauthorized redistribution of) music. Yes kids, P2P generally does that by design.
Click to expand...


at 2250 per song, and 99 cents base rate, that means she shared with 2250 people.

I guess that's more believable.


gotta love the american court system. The poor always win, and the rich always lose.

good luck collecting from someone who barely has any money left after paying the rent
 
dr.kevin said:
at 2250 per song, and 99 cents base rate, that means she shared with 2250 people.

I guess that's more believable.


gotta love the american court system. The poor always win, and the rich always lose.

good luck collecting from someone who barely has any money left after paying the rent
Click to expand...

The same anywhere, is it not? Blood from a stone and all that.
 
demingo said:
There is Chapter 7 and Chapter 13. Chapter 13 you still have to pay pack what you owe, but you get to map out payment terms over a long period of time, you can also negotiate the sum down.

In Chapter 7, your debt is wiped out and you do not owe anything after. Chapter 7 is harder to file for, but the amount being tossed around in these cases would generally qualify people who aren't upper middle class. There are somethings that cannot be dropped by chapter 7, but civil judgements, like the one in this case, can be wiped out by chapter 7.
Click to expand...

After the 2005 amendments to the bankruptcy code, the bankruptcy courts use the "means test" analysis for Ch. 7 filings - a formula for your income and expenses to determine if you get to stay in Ch. 7 or have to convert to a Ch. 13.

Ch. 13 also gets a discharge, it's just that certain debt must be paid in the Ch. 13 plan for it to be confirmed.

Most likely you would get a debt for this type of lawsuit discharged in Ch.7 or Ch. 13.

Your credit would be totally ruined, however.
 
MotorMouth said:
The thing about a civil suit is their not worth much. Because people can only take a judgment out on you. That does not mean you will ever get any money from them. If they sell a house, car or something of value then any profits you are supposed to pay them some of what you owe. Just like when my car was broken into and the jerk caused $500 worth of damage. All I could do is collect when he want's to give me money. 7 years later I'm still waiting!
Click to expand...

dam that sucks
 
brian770 said:
if there is a set fine for committing a crime and you break the law, should you not pay the price?
i dont agree with the high fines handed out, but if you know in advance and still make the choice to do it....DONT BITCH ABOUT GETTING CAUGHT!
Click to expand...

Exactly, I agree yes the fines might be a little high. but don't share music or movies and you are fine. Pay the $10 - $15 a month and get an unlimited music plan and get all the music you want legally and you won't have to worry about this type of stuff.
 
2,250 times actual damages for copyright infringement?

If you stole a REAL product that cost REAL money to make, there's no way that would happen. By this logic, if I stole a $20,000 car and destroyed it I could be liable for $45,000,000 in statutory damages.
 
Exavior said:
Exactly, I agree yes the fines might be a little high. but don't share music or movies and you are fine. Pay the $10 - $15 a month and get an unlimited music plan and get all the music you want legally and you won't have to worry about this type of stuff.
Click to expand...

Or rip CDs from librarys/friends for free. Unless they have put that DRM malware junk in CDs (you know they have).
Theres just something about this kind of crap (party directed at ubisoft, ok mostly) that just makes me want to wear an eyepatch and steal a parrot. If you heard that someone had taken someones house and car, in responce for taking their toenail clippings, you not feel morally bankrupt for stealing their lint. Infact the way they act now, i'd feel worse about buying a download, than copying one.
 
brian770 said:
if there is a set fine for committing a crime and you break the law, should you not pay the price?
i dont agree with the high fines handed out, but if you know in advance and still make the choice to do it....DONT BITCH ABOUT GETTING CAUGHT!
Click to expand...
Here is the problem. YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE "PRICE" IS.

It is exactly why you have these court cases. To debate how much the punishment is. Of which you don't know till your slapped with it.

But that is not taking into account "let the punishment fit the crime". Because IMHO even $67,500 for 30 songs is way out of hand.
 
necrosis said:
Here is the problem. YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE "PRICE" IS.

It is exactly why you have these court cases. To debate how much the punishment is. Of which you don't know till your slapped with it.

But that is not taking into account "let the punishment fit the crime". Because IMHO even $67,500 for 30 songs is way out of hand.
Click to expand...

the point he was trying to make wasn't knowing the exact price, but knowing you'll get reamed majorly if you get caught. Quit filesharing illegally and you won't have anything to worry about.
 
I fell that if you pirate the music you should be fined. PERIOD! Although, I also feel that a suitable amount should be set instead of every case being their own penalties. If a precedent is to be set, then our government needs to figure out what each song is worth, then everyone would have to pay that per song they are charged for. Even if that price is 10x a normal song... For example if each song is worth $.99 by law, then you would pay $9.99 for each song you download. Now, as to what the court costs are, that is another question. They should ultimately settle out of court, thus allowing actual criminals that have murdered and raped people go to court and get theirs properly.

Just my .02.
 
the mega lawsuits are improper IMO. This person was not the one who made the songs available. That person is the one who created and uploaded the MP3. I'd venture to say that at any given time you can find that same song from thousands of places on the internet. If they want money, then it should be capped at 3x actual damages. Not sure how they would determine this, but say your download and 5 others = 6 X .99 * 3 = $18.
 
DeathPrincess said:
Or rip CDs from librarys/friends for free. Unless they have put that DRM malware junk in CDs (you know they have).
Theres just something about this kind of crap (party directed at ubisoft, ok mostly) that just makes me want to wear an eyepatch and steal a parrot. If you heard that someone had taken someones house and car, in responce for taking their toenail clippings, you not feel morally bankrupt for stealing their lint. Infact the way they act now, i'd feel worse about buying a download, than copying one.
Click to expand...

not that your method would be any better. just a little less likely to get caught. It is still better to just pay for the cost of 1 cd for unlimited music for the month and not have to worry about any of this stuff. You, nor anyone else, give a damn about the artist and them getting screwed. All you care about is trying to come up with some excuse as too why you shouldn't have to pay for anything. The artist could get every cent that they are owed and you would still come up with some reason why you shouldn't pay.
 
WozniakMac said:
I fell that if you pirate the music you should be fined. PERIOD! Although, I also feel that a suitable amount should be set instead of every case being their own penalties. If a precedent is to be set, then our government needs to figure out what each song is worth, then everyone would have to pay that per song they are charged for. Even if that price is 10x a normal song... For example if each song is worth $.99 by law, then you would pay $9.99 for each song you download. Now, as to what the court costs are, that is another question. They should ultimately settle out of court, thus allowing actual criminals that have murdered and raped people go to court and get theirs properly.

Just my .02.
Click to expand...

The cost of replicating music today is $0.00. The value of one music track therefore is $0.00. What does have value is the musician, artist or band producing new music as a service. That's what one should be paying for, not some imaginary value pasted onto something which is as scarce as water on this planet.

On a sidenote, from what I recall the US system doesn't differentiate between commercial and individual copyright infringement, does it? These dollar values per shared song ('damages') seem to be much closer to that for commercial copyright infringement than one'd expect for someone who hasn't gained a single cent from sharing.

As for actual damages, reliable independent studies have indicated that the free sharing of music actually helps artists by increasing their exposure. Going back to the 'music as a service' concept, this makes a lot of sense.
 
fattypants said:
2,250 times actual damages for copyright infringement?

If you stole a REAL product that cost REAL money to make, there's no way that would happen. By this logic, if I stole a $20,000 car and destroyed it I could be liable for $45,000,000 in statutory damages.
Click to expand...
Not nearly the same thing.
 
TitanFox said:
one thing that i keep thinking about is after its all over in court what happens if they just file bankruptcy.

i know i had some one hit me years ago had no insurance. judgement was for 13k they were not going to pay so i started the wage garnishment. month later i get a letter stating they filed chapter 7. being only thing they really owned is a wrecked car they got a way scott free never had to pay after bankruptcy.
Click to expand...
well you can also not even make enough to have your wages garnished
 
brian770 said:
if there is a set fine for committing a crime and you break the law, should you not pay the price?
i dont agree with the high fines handed out, but if you know in advance and still make the choice to do it....DONT BITCH ABOUT GETTING CAUGHT!
Click to expand...

It's screwed up because You can literally be fined millions of dollars for file sharing, but go out driving drunk and kill a family and you spend a few days in jail and pay a $5k fine and if you have an umbrella insurance policy you don't even have to worry that much about getting sued as the insurance will pay up.
 
Exavior said:
not that your method would be any better. just a little less likely to get caught. It is still better to just pay for the cost of 1 cd for unlimited music for the month and not have to worry about any of this stuff. You, nor anyone else, give a damn about the artist and them getting screwed. All you care about is trying to come up with some excuse as too why you shouldn't have to pay for anything. The artist could get every cent that they are owed and you would still come up with some reason why you shouldn't pay.
Click to expand...

I know, I really hate getting payed.
But heres the thing, when someone works for a label, all the profits go to the label to pay off what they loaned the artist. After the loan is payed off they get rid of the artist and keep the IP on the music. Then release it for free in some big collection. They are the ones screwing the artists.
That is why you should purchase merchandise or tickets for shows, over CDs. That way the artist is more likely to get some of the money you give them.
 
Maybe we can get lucky and some supreme court judge with no knowledge of technology will just say it's all petty theft and charge them with a misdemeanor and small fine.
 
you would probably get off lighter by physically stealing the fucking master recording
 
DeathPrincess said:
I know, I really hate getting payed.
But heres the thing, when someone works for a label, all the profits go to the label to pay off what they loaned the artist. After the loan is payed off they get rid of the artist and keep the IP on the music. Then release it for free in some big collection. They are the ones screwing the artists.
That is why you should purchase merchandise or tickets for shows, over CDs. That way the artist is more likely to get some of the money you give them.
Click to expand...

Word. Labels steal the copyright from their artists, give them a pittance in return for their work and unless you happen to be one of the <1% of their artists being paraded around like a friggin' show pony there is no chance in hell you'll ever run a significant profit on this music business if you can even pay off the loans at all.

Similarly, those businesses which collect licensing fees don't give those artists a cent either. They just keep most if not all of the money to themselves. Together with the labels they're pretty much the vultures/weasels of the copyright world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top